282361 Wed Jan 11 00:07:39 -0800 2006 25 31 Home Cooking 0 1504526 so my clients mercury levels are wayyyyy high according to his doctor. so he wants me to cut back on fish but apparently there are SOME fish I can cook......... does anyone know what fish I can make that have little levels of mercury? (no shellfish, please) :) Wed Jan 11 00:07:39 -0800 2006 0 junglekitte 1 1504530 Both the farm raised tilapia and the farm raised catfish that you can get everywhere cheaply are environmentally safe and healthy - that is, they have little negative ecological impact and contain no mercury. You can eat as much as you want. They also have no flavor - at least not to the extent that their natural brethren have, which can be good and bad. If your looking for the somewhat oily, muddy, flavor of these bottomfeeders, its not there - they're just too bland for some of the traditional recipes. But as generic white fish, they can be used in recipes that call for generic white fish quite nicely. Farm raised Trout is also safe from mercury and can be quite tasty with very little preparation. In general, fresh water fish, especially farm raised, are safe. Wed Jan 11 00:36:49 -0800 2006 1504526 0 applehome 2 1504534 I have read that farm-raised fish and shellfish are environmentally awful, and that the food fed to the fish, as well as their excrement drift out to sea and mingle with the waters, and create havoc. Wed Jan 11 00:40:23 -0800 2006 1504530 0 oakjoan 3 1504538 In terms of the Salmon, there are issues - and spefically with regard to Mercury. Remember that Salmon aquaculture is in the ocean, where the freshwater fish are done in tanks - they are entirely captive, and much safer to eat as well as being ecologically more sound. I've read this in many places. Here's a guide that lists the farmed trout and catfish in the low mercury/low impact (yes) column - they list the tilapia in the medium column, I think because of the recovery issue (it doesn't have the M, so Mercury is not an issue). In fact, because of the sound farming of tilapia, I've read elsewhere that it's as good as the catfish and trout. Link: http://www.thegreenguide.com/gg/pdf/fishchartissue97.pdf Wed Jan 11 00:58:48 -0800 2006 1504534 0 applehome 4 1504566 I've also heard negatives about tilapia farming - specifically Indonesian tilapia farming and wretched environmental impact . . . Wed Jan 11 10:51:57 -0800 2006 1504538 0 pitu 5 1504594 According to a reputable source (link below...my favorite link regarding seafood) US talapia farms don't pose a threat to the environment. It's so important to know where your fish comes from! Link: http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp Wed Jan 11 13:08:07 -0800 2006 1504566 0 EMZ 5 1504595 There is some clean acquaculture but very little of it. Asian farm-raised shrimp and tilpia are among the worst choices as is most farm-raised salmon. Wed Jan 11 13:09:05 -0800 2006 1504566 0 JudiAU 6 1504606 And very much of what is available here does come from Asia! Wed Jan 11 13:42:19 -0800 2006 1504595 0 Two Forks 2 1504584 I believe you may be mistaken about the enviro-friendly nature of these farm raised fish. Also, fresh water fish (non-farm raised) tends to be EXTREMELY unhealthy-- PCB's, pesticides, herbicides,e tc. I read somewhere that the fish in well over half of the fresh water bodies in this country are unfit for human consuption. Wed Jan 11 12:24:23 -0800 2006 1504530 0 Two Forks 3 1504624 Please provide a reference. I've read several sources that say nothing of the kind - that US freshwater farmed fish are unfit for human consumption. The negative items I've read with regard to fresh water aquaculture are always about Asia. The US farmed fish are relatively safe from mercury and other health risks (see RWOrange's link in her post to the FDA site, which is pretty definitive if you don't believe the Green Guide). As far as environmental impact, this is a quote from the site I link to below: "Many of the aquaculture farms operate without a negative impact on the environment. In fact, catfish, tilapia, and freshwater carp can convert harmful organic wastes into edible fish meat." Here's one from the Green guide (www.Greenguide.com) from which I linked to the chart on my previous post: "However, with proper management some species, such as abalone and catfish, can be farmed successfully without harming the environment." Link: http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/aquaculture/EnvironmentalImpact.html Wed Jan 11 15:03:43 -0800 2006 1504584 0 applehome 4 1504641 Please re-read my post. I specifically cited NON-FARMED freshwater fish as a health hazard. As for the environmental health of the farmed species ou dited, the domestic ones are liekly fine, as they are farmed inland and in low density. However, the Asian and South American ones, where the vast majority of what we eat comes from, is NOT environvmentally friendly-- escaped stock of non-natice species, disease, waste runoff are all big problems. Wed Jan 11 16:26:06 -0800 2006 1504624 0 Two Forks 1 1504535 I JUST read an article about this the other day and thought "I should post this on the chowhound board." Darn if I cannot remember where I read it but here's a link to a very similar article regarding mercury levels in fish...some are better than others and this article is almost identical to the the article I read on Sunday. Link: http://www.healthcaresouth.com/pages/askthedoctor/mercuryfish.htm Wed Jan 11 00:46:24 -0800 2006 1504526 0 Val 2 1504567 for more reading on mercury and fish . . . the Wall Street Journal did an interesting piece this summer there's a link (WSJ is a paid site) and a paraphrase (at my food coop site) linked below - scroll down to August 1, 2005 Link: http://www.psfc.blogspot.com/ Wed Jan 11 10:56:30 -0800 2006 1504535 0 pitu 1 1504543 Small fish or fish that don't have long life-spans (like farmed fish) are best to choose. These fish are don't eat other fish. With the exception of salmon (which eat mainly plankton), avoid large fish that are big enough to be cut into steaks. Just as people accumulate mercury by eating fish with mercury, larger fish eat smaller fish and accumulate any mercury in the fish they eat. All fish have mercury. So a large fish like a shark will eat a medium fish that has eaten a small fish. The shark will wind up with the accumulated mercury. Also, shark have long life spans, so the mercury in large predatory fish like these builds up over time. The FDA recommends fish with less than 0.25 parts of mercury per million parts of fish. Any fish with more than 1.0 ppm of mercury cannot be legally sold. The FDA chart is below. HOWEVER, there are a lot of caveats. The FDA doesn't do much testing. They don't test imported fish. The Candians are a little more conservative with recommendations, and warn agains fish like walleye and orange roughy which the FDA feels falls in acceptable mercury levels. If buying farm raised fish, be aware of what they are being fed. Bottom line, fish like sardines, tilapia, catfish and wild salmon are fine. Avoid fish like swordfish, shark, mackerel, halibut or Chilean sea bass (the revenge of the CSB. If you don't give them up because they are endangered, the mercury in them will get you) Link: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html Wed Jan 11 03:54:30 -0800 2006 1504526 0 rworange 2 1504582 Recent data actually suggests that salmon can contain significantly higher amounts of mercury than previously thought. In addition, there is a lot of farm raised being unscrupulously sold as wild. The FDA advises pregant women and small children should have no more than one serving per week. Wed Jan 11 12:20:19 -0800 2006 1504543 0 Two Forks 3 1504617 Can you back that statement? The link that I provided in my OP to the FDA chart IS the FDA site and the recommendation for pregant women is 2 servings (12 oz) of low mercury fish of which salmon is one of the fish suggested. Are you talking about salmon from a specific area like the Great Lakes? I really don't trust any farmed fish as I've read some horror stories about fish food and conditions not to mention the environmental impact. That is not true of all fish farms, but as I implied in my original post, when buying farmed fish, know the supplier. Here's a little mercury calculator based on the FDA figures ... which again, is not all that accurate ... the best that can be done is to stick with the low mercury fish. Link: http://www.gotmercury.org/english/advanced.htm Wed Jan 11 14:28:56 -0800 2006 1504582 0 rworange 4 1504645 Couldn't find the article, I think I heard the report on the radio a bit ago citing new findings (possibly non-FDA), but another cites: "In March 2004, FDA and EPA revised its advisories on mercury in fish for pregnant women and young children. Generally they are advised to eat no more than 2 meals of low-mercury fish per week - one can of salmon or half a salmon steak is considered one meal. " note that a half a steak is considered a meal and you should have no more than two meals a week. Interesting to note salmon is a "low mercury" fish, not a "non-mercury" fish. I believe the OP wants to avoid mercury Wed Jan 11 16:36:20 -0800 2006 1504617 0 Two Forks 5 1504664 There are no non mercury fish. All fish have mercury. Wed Jan 11 17:36:49 -0800 2006 1504645 0 rworange 6 1504726 if you say so. Thu Jan 12 10:12:06 -0800 2006 1504664 0 Two Forks 7 1504782 From the EPA article linked below: "However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern." Link: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html Thu Jan 12 18:17:53 -0800 2006 1504726 0 nooodles 8 1504803 Two key words-- "nearly" and "traces", distinguish that claim from the statement that "there is no such thing as mercury-free fish". Fri Jan 13 10:27:17 -0800 2006 1504782 0 Two Forks 9 1504815 Well, the "nearly" does, but "traces" means the fish has mercury. But more importantly . . . I've done some of that research for EPA (not on mercury, but on similarly lipophilic organic contaminants), and I've written some of the language that appears in their press releases, and here's what the government-speak really means: "Every fish that we've ever tested for mercury has had some mercury in it, but since we haven't tested every fish in the world we can't simply say "all," so we'll say "nearly." The fact is the state-of-the-art in analytical chemistry has advanced to the point where you can find just about any contaminant (and particularly one as ubiquitous as mercury) in just about any medium, and I have no doubt that if a good analytical chemist with the right equipment looks hard enough he/she will find mercury in every fish product offered for sale, which is what the OP really meant. In many cases, the concentration will be below the amount that represents any appreciable risk, or at least what any sane person would define as an appreciable risk, but it's still there. Sun Jan 15 09:54:32 -0800 2006 1504803 0 FlyFish 1 1504551 Since mercury bioaccumulates, it is more the age than the size of the fish. I like dolphin (mahi mahi)as they grow rapidly to market size with little to to accumulate mercury. You may find the list at this site useful: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/sea-mehg.html Wed Jan 11 08:38:36 -0800 2006 1504526 0 jfish 2 1504574 Yikes! In case there's anybody out there who doesn't know, mahi mahi is not the MAMMAL dolphin, it's the dolphin-fish (AKA dorado). Wed Jan 11 11:23:36 -0800 2006 1504551 0 Cristina 1 1504571 thanks for the great info! Wed Jan 11 11:14:41 -0800 2006 1504526 0 junglekitte 1 1504688 This list might help you. They include health alerts if high levels of mercury are found in those fishes. http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx Wed Jan 11 20:47:35 -0800 2006 1504526 0 honkman